Dave, you are obviously further along in researching this than I am at this point but do we know the specific NTSB definition of PEDs yet? If not, I will research it now (that I am finished with the BPL Recon Petition Draft). That could be a key issue here.
Christopher D. Imlay
Booth, Freret, Imlay & Tepper. P.C.
14356 Cape May Road
Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011
(301) 384-5525 telephone
(301) 384-6384 facsimile
W3KD@ARRL.ORG
-----Original Message-----
From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ, K1ZZ <dsumner@arrl.org>
To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@arrl.org>
Sent: Wed, Dec 14, 2011 9:35 am
Subject: [arrl-odv:20361] Distracted driving
Since the NTSB recommendation that all use of cellphones and other portable electronic devices by drivers be banned is the lead news story of the day, it’s worth a reminder that ARRL has been on top of this issue’s implications for Amateur Radio mobile operation for several years.
ARRL’s position is set out in the attached Mobile Amateur Radio Policy Statement, which includes suggested legislative language. In looking over the statement quickly this morning I didn’t see anything that requires a change, although I would encourage you all to review it with an eye to improving it in light of nearly three additional years of experience.
The correspondence with the National Safety Council that is cited in the following web story from September 15, 2009 may also be helpful:
Of course, in responding to the NTSB recommendation we must be careful not to minimize the horrific nature of the accidents cited in their Fact Sheet (also attached). But the fact is that none of them involved Amateur Radio or other two-way radio operation, and one of the studies cited therein (the Australian study reported in the New England Journal of Medicine) had already been debunked prior to the NTSB release (see http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/12/us-studies-cellphone-crash-idUSTRE7BB1B720111212
Dave K1ZZ
<<MobileAmateurRadioPolicyStatement.pdf>> <<PED_Ban_Fact_Sheet.pdf>>